Jump to content

Do you really kill mountain lions in US Canada


Recommended Posts

I was surfing the net on some unrelated topics, when i stuck on a picture that led me to this horrible crime:

 

http://raw-outdoors.com/?page_id=71

 

Mountain-Lion-40.jpg

 

My initial ingenus thought was as the picture was minimized some conservationist showing some drugged awesome felidae in an eco work. But that red spot called my attention and on maximizing i remembered once more, that sometimes the death of a human is something to celebrate as the world becomes a better place for us all (us includes all living beings).

 

Well i wanted to show the embarrassment i feel now for any uneducated country to allow this. And to tell you that if you think this is right, or normal, i can tell you being foreign that:

 

No.

 

It is not normal.

 

It is indeed Sub-Normal.

 

Shameful. Loath.

Edited by zacocom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your opinion, to which you are certainly entitled, on the matter has been noted. Of course, you left out any reason objective reasons why, so there's really not much to discuss, since trying to argue against someone's opinions is generally a fruitless endeavor.

 

On the other hand, I would argue that hunting animals is far more normal than not hunting them, since we - as a species - have been doing the former a lot longer than the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your opinion, to which you are certainly entitled, on the matter has been noted. Of course, you left out any reason objective reasons why, so there's really not much to discuss, since trying to argue against someone's opinions is generally a fruitless endeavor.

 

On the other hand, I would argue that hunting animals is far more normal than not hunting them, since we - as a species - have been doing the former a lot longer than the latter.

Hunting to eat is one thing, hunting so one can have a picture taken happily smiling with a dead animal is another. Motive matters. Tradition is not a substitute for ethics.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some facts:

 

In my state of Colorado, they determine a quota for hunters and issue that many licenses to hunt one lion each. Colorado doesn't limit the kills to males, however, which many experts say they should.

 

The quotas are supposedly to reduce human/lion/livestock interaction, but the hunting doesn't happen where those interactions take place, on the borders of civilization. Hunters travel to the back country, so many argue that it doesn't help that much.

 

There is a limit to how many can be killed each year, but because of budget cuts during the Bush administration, our forestry services no longer keep accurate track of how many mountain lions there really are. This would seem to make the limit number fairly arbitrary.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not a hunter, personally. I've always understood that animal population management efforts rely on hunters to keep a balance in the environment, and those efforts are necessary. I know there are many nuances I'm not aware of, and that this is a very complex issue that isn't going to be simply switched off by saying, "No more killing mountain lions".

 

It's interesting to note the emotional appeals surrounding this practice. To me, it seems rational to stop killing hundreds when you've only got thousands left. There have been many calls for reducing the limit by half, but this hasn't gotten much traction, mainly because the hunting lobbies can point to livestock deaths, so emotions have kept the practice in place. Back in 2004, oddly enough, we did pass a law to require the person who killed the cat to be part of the party that tracked it in the first place. Apparently, a lot of wealthy foreign thrillseekers were hiring guides to do all the hard work, and then they'd have themselves choppered in to make the kill. When the law was proposed, it passed easily.

 

I think this shows that people really don't want these magnificent animals killed disrespectfully, but perhaps have been emotionally persuaded to allow a certain number to be killed "for their safety and ours". If more people would use their reason rather than making this an emotional issue, I think more people would realize that those who live on the borders of civilization do so for a reason, and they should expect some brushes with Mother Nature, who is sometimes a very dangerous bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hunting to eat is one thing, hunting so one can have a picture taken happily smiling with a dead animal is another. Motive matters. Tradition is not a substitute for ethics.

 

I'm not arguing the right or the wrong. Right and wrong are subjective - we can argue about that until we both grow old and die and I doubt either of us would change our stance one wit.

 

I was arguing against the specific claim that this is abnormal behavior for human beings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm not arguing the right or the wrong. Right and wrong are subjective - we can argue about that until we both grow old and die and I doubt either of us would change our stance one wit.

 

I was arguing against the specific claim that this is abnormal behavior for human beings.

There have been many human activities in our history that were considered 'normal' but are now not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been many human activities in our history that were considered 'normal' but are now not.

I agree with you on that point. I disagree that hunting would be considered one of those activities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how to address the idea that hunting is abnormal for humans, the question is self explanatory to me humans have made their living through hunting from the very beginning of being human, even chimps hunt.

 

As for mountain lions their population has to be controlled, there is no longer a natural control on their numbers, in some areas they have actually hunted and killed humans.

 

While it might be nice to think that the animal world is separate from the human world, the fact is that we are now more a part of it than ever. Human have altered the ecology to the point that human intervention is now necessary to prevent over population of various animals not to mention keep a fear of humans instilled in various predatory populations.

 

If anyone has another option I've like to hear it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how to address the idea that hunting is abnormal for humans, the question is self explanatory to me humans have made their living through hunting from the very beginning of being human, even chimps hunt.

 

As for mountain lions their population has to be controlled, there is no longer a natural control on their numbers, in some areas they have actually hunted and killed humans.

 

While it might be nice to think that the animal world is separate from the human world, the fact is that we are now more a part of it than ever. Human have altered the ecology to the point that human intervention is now necessary to prevent over population of various animals not to mention keep a fear of humans instilled in various predatory populations.

 

If anyone has another option I've like to hear it...

It's not control I have an issue with, it's the idea of killing for pleasure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how to address the idea that hunting is abnormal for humans, the question is self explanatory to me humans have made their living through hunting from the very beginning of being human, even chimps hunt.

 

As for mountain lions their population has to be controlled, there is no longer a natural control on their numbers, in some areas they have actually hunted and killed humans.

 

While it might be nice to think that the animal world is separate from the human world, the fact is that we are now more a part of it than ever. Human have altered the ecology to the point that human intervention is now necessary to prevent over population of various animals not to mention keep a fear of humans instilled in various predatory populations.

 

If anyone has another option I've like to hear it...

 

Big, long walls. Let the ecosystem do its thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Please. Don't even think about suggesting this in the southwestern US.

 

Require town walls for all towns on the preserved landscape, preventing further expansion edit:: and keeping animals out ::edit. Check for hunting contraband at town gates. Apply progressively stricter prohibitions deeper inside until only small, self-defense guns are allowed.

Edited by MonDie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Require town walls for all towns on the preserved landscape, preventing further expansion. Check for hunting contraband at town gates. Apply progressively stricter prohibitions deeper inside until only small, self-defense guns are allowed.

 

Fish & Wildlife doesn't have the authority or manpower to do something like this, so you either give it to them, or you look to Homeland Security, who are already in charge of several hundred miles of fence in the US southwest. And historically, walls aren't built to restrict the builder's expansion.

 

If you're going to expand the FWS, you won't need walls and wardens, because you'll be able to get an accurate count of how many mountain lions we actually have, and adjust limits accordingly, or do away with them altogether. Perhaps some science-types could convince the states to limit kills to males only. There are lots of things that would be a more efficient use of that kind of money.

 

Ask Homeland Security how effective the Mexico wall is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ask Homeland Security how effective the Mexico wall is.

 

Indeed, one guy could drive the car through while the other tosses contraband over the wall.

Why can't the fricking animals just adapt to bullets?

If you're going to expand the FWS, you won't need walls and wardens, because you'll be able to get an accurate count of how many mountain lions we actually have, and adjust limits accordingly, or do away with them altogether. Perhaps some science-types could convince the states to limit kills to males only. There are lots of things that would be a more efficient use of that kind of money.

 

When is it ecological beneficial to hunt, excepting invasive species?

More cats -> more genetic variability -> cats adapt more quickly

Why can't we protect us from them and them from us?

Oh right, the J curve and mass die offs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh right, the J curve and mass die offs.

 

yeah, pretty much.

 

Should note that various animal management services around the world regularly conduct animal slaughters as well. Really ugly affairs all around though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Indeed, one guy could drive the car through while the other tosses contraband over the wall.

Why can't the fricking animals just adapt to bullets?

 

When is it ecological beneficial to hunt, excepting invasive species?

More cats -> more genetic variability -> cats adapt more quickly

Why can't we protect us from them and them from us?

Oh right, the J curve and mass die offs.

 

The ecology of highly populated areas are no longer natural, large predatory animals and humans do not mix well, populations of such animals spread unless there is a check on their numbers, while i agree that in some areas humans have been spreading out into land that was once the preserve of such predators this is true everywhere, just because these predators were wiped out in your area before you were born doesn't mean they never existed...

 

 

Require town walls for all towns on the preserved landscape, preventing further expansion edit:: and keeping animals out ::edit. Check for hunting contraband at town gates. Apply progressively stricter prohibitions deeper inside until only small, self-defense guns are allowed.

 

Your ideas presented here show a distinct lack of knowledge about land management, ecology and history...

 

People who enjoy killing animals are psychopaths. Very sick individuals indeed.

 

I disagree, can you show me a scientific study that agree with you in the circumstances we are talking about?

 

It's not control I have an issue with, it's the idea of killing for pleasure.

 

Do you hunt or fish? How much contact with wild animals do you have regularly? Death, hunting and killing are a completely natural part of our world, humans are a natural part of that as well and hunting is a natural human activity...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

...Do you hunt or fish? How much contact with wild animals do you have regularly? Death, hunting and killing are a completely natural part of our world, humans are a natural part of that as well and hunting is a natural human activity...

Yeah, I go fishing. I'm catching and releasing the same fish I caught 14 years ago and watching them grow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

AFAIK it's not statistically establish, but has been presumed from case studies.

 

 

 

Oh right, the J curve and mass die offs.

 

yeah, pretty much.

 

Should note that various animal management services around the world regularly conduct animal slaughters as well. Really ugly affairs all around though.

But even those mass die offs involve natural selection. As I said, they can't adapt to bullets. What aren't I seeing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Research

In 1971, American researchers profiled the typical animal harmer as being a nine-and-a-half-year-old boy, with an I.Q. of 91 and a history of gross parental abuse. Studies have shown that individuals who enjoy or are willing to inflict harm on animals are more likely to do so to humans. One of the known warning signs of certain psychopathologies, including antisocial personality disorder, is a history of torturing pets and small animals. According to the New York Times:

“ The FBI has found that a history of cruelty to animals is one of the traits that regularly appear in its computer records of serial rapists and murderers, and the standard diagnostic and treatment manual for psychiatric and emotional disorders lists cruelty to animals as a diagnostic criterion for conduct disorders.[2]

Helen Gavin observed in Criminological and Forensic Psychology (2013):

“ This is not a universal trait, though. Dennis Nilsen had difficulty initiating social contact with people, but loved his faithful companion, Bleep, a mongrel bitch. After his arrest, he was very concerned for her welfare, as she was taken to the police station too.[3]

Alan R. Felthous reported in his paper "Aggression Against Cats, Dogs, and People" (1980):

“ A survey of psychiatric patients who had repeatedly tortured dogs and cats found all of them had high levels of aggression toward people as well, including one patient who had murdered a boy.[4]

This is a commonly reproduced finding, and for this reason, violence toward animals is considered a warning sign of potential violence towards humans.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoosadism

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.